THE HUSH MONEY TRIAL TOMORROW. WE ARE NOT ABLE TO CONFIRM THIS REPORT, BUT WE DO HAVE KATE AND DAVID BACK. THIS REPORTING, DOES IT SQUARE WITH WHAT YOU ARE HEARING AND WHY WOULD PROSECUTORS WANT DAVID GO FIRST? >> THE NEW YORK TIMES IS HEARING THAT DAVID MAY BE THE FIRST WITNESS TO BE CALLED. AND HE'S THE FORMER PUBLISHER OF THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER. AND IF HE IS THE FIRST WITNESS THAT PROSECUTORS CHOOSE TO PUT ON THE STAND, HOW THEY PLAN TO APPROACH IT. DAVID , AS A CLOSE FRIEND OF TRUMP IN 2016 WAS PART OF THIS SCHEME TO SUPPRESS NEGATIVE STORIES ABOUT TRUMP. AND FOR SOME OF THEM THE CONCEPT OF CATCH AND KILL AND TRY TO SUPPRESS THE STORIES. IF HE IS ULTIMATELY THE FIRST WITNESS, THE PROSECUTOR WILL SAY WE WANT TO PUT UP THIS WITNESS AND EXPLAIN THE SCHEME THAT WAS CONCOCTED IN 2016 THAT ULTIMATELY CREATED WHAT BECOMES THIS HUSH MONEY PAYMENT AND WHAT PROSECUTORS SAY WAS THE SCHEME TO AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION.>> AND CREATED THE PAYMENTS FOR KAREN McDOUGAL AND STORMY DANIELS. SO DO WE ACTUALLY GET TO A FIRST WITNESS TOMORROW. >> I THINK IF WE'VE SEEN ANYTHING IN JUDGE JUAN MERCHAN'S ATTEMPT TO KEEP THIS UNDER CONTROL, WE GOT A JURY IN THREE DAYS AND HE IS SET TO GET THIS CASE DONE IN THE SIX WEEK TIME FRAME. THEY WILL BREAK EARLY FOR PASSOVER. SO IT'S POSSIBLE WE GET TO THE FIRST WITNESS. >> JUST TO DRILL DOWN ON OPENING STATEMENTS, PROSECUTORS SAY THIS IS ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW AND WHETHER OR NOT DONALD TRUMP BROKER. HIS ALLIES STRUCK THREE HUSH MONEY DEALS AND STORIES THAT COULD DERAILED HIS CANDIDACY. THE TIMES SAYS DIRECTLY LINKING HIM TO THE PLOT TO FALSIFY RECORDS IS ANOTHER MATTER ALTOGETHER. HIS LAWYERS WILL LIKELY ARGUE HE WAS OBLIVIOUS AND THAT MICHAEL COHEN HANDLED THE SPECIFICS. DAVID, IS IT DIFFICULT TO PROVE THIS CASE? WOULD A JURY BELIEVED THAT COHEN DECIDED TO DIP INTO HIS HOME EQUITY TO GIVE MONEY TO STORMY DANIELS? >> I DON'T THINK IT'S DIFFICULT TO PROVE THIS LEGALLY. AND HERE'S WHY. THE RULE FOR THE PROSECUTION'S OFFICE IS YOU DON'T BRING A HIGH PROFILE CASE IN THAT YOU EXPECT TO LOSE. HE HAS SHOWN THIS TO OTHERS AND THEY'VE ASSURED HIM THAT HE CAN LEGALLY APPROVE THIS CASE. IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THE JURY GETS DISTRACTED WHEN THEY HEAR THIS EVIDENCE. THEY REALLY NEED TO PLAY THIS STRAIGHT. THIS IS WHAT YOU AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT IN THE LAST SEGMENT ABOUT PRIOR BAD ACTS. YOU HAVE TWO LAWYERS AND AN ENGINEER ON THE JURY. I DON'T KNOW ANY TRIAL LAWYER WHO WOULD VOLUNTARILY HAVE A LAWYER ON THE TRIAL ALONE TO. THEY ARE THE RARE EXCEPTION IN TERMS OF JURORS WHO WILL FOCUS ON EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS. THEREFORE, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE TOO SALACIOUS IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. YOU WANT TO PLAY IT STRAIGHT AND LET THEM KNOW HE DID IT AND WE ARE GOING TO PROVE IT AND YOU'RE THE FAX YOU WILL HEAR AND LEAVE IT TO THE DEFENSE TO MAKE THINGS DRAMATIC TO SAY THEY BROUGHT THIS UP AND WE HAD TO RESPOND TO IT. >> THAT'S A VERY SMART ANALYSIS. TUESDAY IT SHIFTS TO A CONTEMPT MOTION ON THE GAG ORDER. LAWYERS CLAIM THAT HE VIOLATED IT ABOUT 10 TIMES. WILL HE GO TO PRISON IF HE IS CONVICTED? IS THIS A REALISTIC THREAT FACING DONALD TRUMP? WHAT ARE THE ODDS? >> JUDGE JUAN MERCHAN HAS A REPUTATION FOR BEING TOUGH ON WHITE COLLAR CRIMES, BUT IT'S A POSSIBILITY THAT IF HE IS CONVICTED OF THE COUNTS THAT HE COULD BE SENT TO PRISON. THIS CRIME COULD CARRY UP TO 40 YEARS OF INCARCERATION. IT IS LIKELY THAT HE WOULD RUN THESE CONCURRENTLY RATHER THAN CONSECUTIVELY, BUT IT IS A POSSIBILITY. IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT ULTIMATELY IF HE IS CONVICTED THAT HE FACES PROBATION. RIGHT NOW WE DON'T KNOW AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE EVIDENCE AND ULTIMATELY ONCE A VERDICT IS REACHED THAT THE JUDGE WOULD BE EVALUATING. >> DO YOU PERCEIVE OF ANY JUDGE THROWING TRUMP IN PRISON? >> NO. THERE'S NO CHANCE. AND HERE'S WHY. THERE ARE THINGS ABOUT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT WE DON'T TALK ABOUT. THE FACILITY THAT YOU GO TO HAS A BIG DECISION TO PLAY IN DETERMINING HOW YOU SERVE YOUR TIME. YEARS AGO, IF YOU RECALL, CHRIS TILTON HAD A DWI. SHE WOULD GO TO THE FACILITY AND BE LET OUT EARLY AND PEOPLE WOULD WONDER WHAT IS GOING ON? WHAT ANY WARDEN WILL SAY IS, I DON'T WANT HIM IN MY FACILITY BECAUSE I CANNOT KEEP HIM SAFE. SO DON'T SENT HIM HERE. THERE'S A POSSIBILITY HE IS SENTENCED TO TIME. I THINK IT IS REMOTE, BUT THE LIKELIHOOD OF HIM BEING INSIDE A JAIL CELL IS NONEXISTENT. >> I'M CURIOUS. IS THEIR BUZZ AROUND THE COURTHOUSE ABOUT STORMY DANIELS AND DO YOU SEE THE UPSIDE OR THE PERIL THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS PUTTING HER ON THE STAND?>> I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A TON OF CONVERSATIONS. I THINK REPORTERS ARE TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT SHE WOULD COME FOR THE PROCEEDINGS AND POSSIBLY BECOME A WITNESS. I THINK PROSECUTORS ARE MAKING THE CALCULUS OF IS HER TESTIMONY -- IS IT EVEN NECESSARY? ARE THERE OTHER WITNESSES THAT CAN FILL IN THE GAPS OF THIS HUSH MONEY DEAL WITHOUT HER TAKING THE STAND. I'M SURE SHE WILL BE PREPARED TO TESTIFY, BUT PROSECUTORS ARE TRYING TO DECIDE IF IT'S NEEDED OR WILL THAT CREATE MORE OF A
